World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

*Moangroan* said:
I have not read any report but jet fuel burns off really quick with big flames and stuff (especially the stuff bit). So how did the steel all break up with heat ????. It was red hot when they were taking it away to be recycled (far too quickly imo)

Or are they saying it was that fire but it wasn't buring for that long was it ??
Click to expand...

office suplies like desks computers plastic chairs, carpets etc all burn too. The metal doesn;t need to melt steel loses half it's strength well before it gets hot enoguh to melt.

With no fire protection (it's a brittle substance that was broken off in places by the explosion/force of impact) in parts the metal got hot enough that it was too soft to support the thousands of tons of pressure from the floors above and failed. then the parts which wern't fire damaged where left to support much more than they where designed too and failed too (this would probably have been be fractions of a second to seconds after the heated beams failed)
 
In the case of WTC2 tho I can't see how more than 1/3rd of the core supports would have been exposed to conditions that would have resulted in destabilization - which should have precepitated a non symetrical collapse, even the buildings design can't account for the way it went down under the conditions.

In the case of WTC1 the plane went in more centrally, with enough force to decimate the central structure, radial elements wouldn't have had the strength to hold against the core collapsing, being pulled in with it - resulting in a far higher chance of symetrical collapse and is more consistant with the results of that day.

WTC7 was blatantly pulled, probably not pre-meditated but in reaction to events that day.
 
Last edited:
I agree rrroff about approx 1/3 of core seen the majority of damage. Is there any witness testimony by firemen as to what floors they were able to walk to or from before the collapse (near to time of collapse)
 
deuse said:
Go ahead

EDIT= You have read the Nist report?
Click to expand...
I have just skimmed through it but the first question made me lose all creditblity with it, if I am going to be honnest about it.
1.* If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
Click to expand...
Firstly id like ot explain why I lost al creditblity with this part “ World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft”. A building designed to soak up that much force would be more like a bunker than the design of the building shows. Also if the building was designed to withstand that impact why did it suffer serve structural damage on a previous terrorist attack? And why also did it have a low earth quake resistance rating?

Any way here the physic behind the the std reason for the towers collapsing.
The aircraft strikes the building, at a guestimated speed of 590 mph and weighs around 380,000lbs
If we use newtons 1st law to work out the force in which the aircraft struck: F=ma
M= 380lbs which in kg is 176901.02
a=590 which in ms is 262 ms
this gives us a impact force of 4.6 x 10 7 nm (this is basic physics using the information available to me from Google and also not counting in energy lost to heat and sound, cos I really can be arsed to work that out.)

next I will show the momentum force using the the equation. M= fxd as im assuming that the tower was at a angle of ninety degrees to the earth.
F= 4.65x 107 nm
Apparently 1 plane struck the 81st floor? Which really dosnt help trying to work out the distance so im gonna flux it and say each floor was a average 3.5 m tall, if this is wrong go work it out your self...

d= 283.5 metres.

So the moment acting on all the supports is around about 13.18 x10 10 nm (seems a bit high but dont see how I could have cocked that up??)


Ok, some fun information about aviation grade jet fuel, It has a open air burning temperature of 287.5c and a energy density of 43.5mj/kg


Also a nice fact for you to compare against dynamite only has a energy density of between 7.5 and 5 mj/kg.

And thats it no more a level science for me today:o



sorry for edit had to itallic the powers due to forum not liking super script...
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
office suplies like desks computers plastic chairs, carpets etc all burn too. The metal doesn;t need to melt steel loses half it's strength well before it gets hot enoguh to melt.

With no fire protection (it's a brittle substance that was broken off in places by the explosion/force of impact) in parts the metal got hot enough that it was too soft to support the thousands of tons of pressure from the floors above and failed. then the parts which wern't fire damaged where left to support much more than they where designed too and failed too (this would probably have been be fractions of a second to seconds after the heated beams failed)
Click to expand...

also tefal ithe supports are a mixture of concrete and steel most of the concrete would have been removed from the column resulting in little compression strength.. which a building this size really needs.
 
deuse said:
Nist states the fires where the planes hit only went uo to 500c
you need constent 1000c for it to give way.
and again Nist SAID in thire final report(which cost $20,000,000)
" WE CAN'T EXPLAIN THE TOTAL COLLAPSE "
Click to expand...

haha rubbish. metal in the US is not tested to any temperature. But I suppose you have read the NIST report.

And the 100% thing has been explained to you a million times. The simulation was not run past the point of total instability due to the number crinching inv9olved, again I suppose you ahve read teh nist report.


As for being able to withstand a plane. No one can find anything in the original plans and briefs about withstanding an impact and the CT use a smaller plane being lost in fog and travelling at approach speed. which makes the KE a number of times smaller.
 
If the trace elements of explosive found in the dust where not from a CT demolitions theory, or from emergency workers, is there another realisitic place they would have origionated from?
 
Lunatyc said:
If the trace elements of explosive found in the dust where not from a CT demolitions theory, or from emergency workers, is there another realisitic place they would have origionated from?
Click to expand...

as the own report says, they are common and can be made from things like welding.
 
Lunatyc said:
If the trace elements of explosive found in the dust where not from a CT demolitions theory, or from emergency workers, is there another realisitic place they would have origionated from?
Click to expand...

the explosive they found was thermo based i.e iron oxide and aluminum, the structure is made of iron , aircraft, windows and other stuff in building are made from aluminum.
above = thermo explosive they found...
 
Lunatyc said:
cheers, i take it this plus the freefall thread hasnt changed many minds
Click to expand...

nope, as the freefall isn't freefall of the building it is a freefall of just 8 out of the 47 floors which is easy to explain.


also I was lead to believe NISt didn't consider explosives, seems CT where wrong. So yet again CT are lying it was considered for at least WTC7


 
AcidHell2 said:
haha rubbish. metal in the US is not tested to any temperature. But I suppose you have read the NIST report.

And the 100% thing has been explained to you a million times. The simulation was not run past the point of total instability due to the number crinching inv9olved, again I suppose you ahve read teh nist report.
Click to expand...

Acid for the last time Nist are YOUR buddies not mine :)

also Nist did not sorry COULD not do the test because there
computer program could NOT account for free fall
thats why they say that. But I have said if they would have used a
program that will include there data input+free fall we would know what happend.


It cost $20,000,000 for what Nist did and they could not buy the right program!
 
deuse said:
also Nist did not sorry COULD not do the test because there
computer program could NOT account for free fall
thats why they say that. But I have said if they would have used a
program that will include there data input+free fall we would know what happend.
Click to expand...

As I have posted the exact paragraph in the other thread. it does not say they used the wrong program it says due to the number of deflections it is imposable for the computer simulation to narrow in on a solution.

At one point you even agreed with me, then for some reason you have done a U-turn.

See you didn't comment on the plane or temp.

They are not my friends, but they are the ones who are using science and evidence to back there claims. Show me any CT which even has 1/4 of there science and evidence to back there claims up. Claims without evidence are useless.
 
I have only skimmed the last few pages so someone may have already said this. It strikes me that the US have used the events of 11/9/2001 as a staging for a number of things. Its seems to be being used to scare the general public into allowing the US government a bit too much lattitude. Aparently US TV give out colour coded "Terror threat" levels on a daily basis on the news. Just to remind everyone. I have very clear memories of the terrorist attacks of the 70's and 80's in this country and we never got to the level of paranoia which seems prevalent in America. There are many more things I could rattle on about but I dont think the towers fell for any other reason than that which was given. It's what has happend since to civil rights etc we could think about.
 
howiepoohs said:
I have only skimmed the last few pages so someone may have already said this. It strikes me that the US have used the events of 11/9/2001 as a staging for a number of things. Its seems to be being used to scare the general public into allowing the US government a bit too much lattitude. Aparently US TV give out colour coded "Terror threat" levels on a daily basis on the news. Just to remind everyone. I have very clear memories of the terrorist attacks of the 70's and 80's in this country and we never got to the level of paranoia which seems prevalent in America. There are many more things I could rattle on about but I dont think the towers fell for any other reason than that which was given. It's what has happend since to civil rights etc we could think about.
Click to expand...

as phesob said, a scared nation is easier governed, its the American way to use any situation to make a profit out of situations like this.

The companies like it weapon sales and amuntion has shot up, as have the security items. when they want people to buy suv they flooded the market with adverts claiming the poor safety of other cars.

The american nation is kept in fear for political and commercial reasons.
 
What I find strange, I distinctly remember interviews on the day of the attacks and the following day where they (IIRC building owner, mayer and someone from the fire dept) clearly said they made a decision to purposefully bring down WTC7, then suddenly a few days later they claim it came down from the fire alone.

I don't buy into any conspiracy theory with WTC7 I believe it was purposefully demolitioned for safery and convenience but the inconsistancy is one of the things that makes me question everything else that day.
 
If their going to use explosives then why fly the plane into the building? I think the janitor was probably confused. I bet the crash of the plane was heard through the entire building so he was probably just confused. It makes more sense then them using explosives in the basement AND crashing a plane into the building.
 
Rroff said:
What I find strange, I distinctly remember interviews on the day of the attacks and the following day where they (IIRC building owner, mayer and someone from the fire dept) clearly said they made a decision to purposefully bring down WTC7, then suddenly a few days later they claim it came down from the fire alone.

I don't buy into any conspiracy theory with WTC7 I believe it was purposefully demolitioned for safery and convenience but the inconsistancy is one of the things that makes me question everything else that day.
Click to expand...

I officially give up, people seem to want to believe a government wants to slaughter 2 thousands of its own people..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom